Author
Topic: Aionios: Let's clear the water (Read 61028 times)

Regarding the idea that an adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived, nor can it change the meaning, I am trying to weigh everything as I search all this out. What about these words?

Time=noun

Timeless=adjective

Age-=noun

Ageless=adjective

It seems to me that these similar adjectives both describe something greater than time or age, and also is a change in meaning. So perhaps the above statement can have some truth, but not in every single case?

Ron

Logged

Paul Hazelwood

Regarding the idea that an adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived, nor can it change the meaning, I am trying to weigh everything as I search all this out. What about these words?

Time=noun

Timeless=adjective

Age-=noun

Ageless=adjective

It seems to me that these similar adjectives both describe something greater than time or age, and also is a change in meaning. So perhaps the above statement can have some truth, but not in every single case?

Ron

Time and Age are also verbs and that is why I have seen that scripture broadens with both translations and causes no contradiction with God causing all men to be saved.

As I have stepped out of the more agressive type debating it is because I can't debate for the either or anymore. It's not even about confusion, it is seeing both and seeing a greater picture; seeing more than one avenue of explanation.

I see where both are correct of you branch out into the perceptive spiritual realm rather than maintaining the literal. The context between the two will determine what word or phrase is used.

Olam being used in scripture as "time out of mind (past or future)" actually can broaden the idea that some verses are saying.

The issue of translation is saying that the study of the ancient languages has caused various definitions to be incorrect.

Then for aionios it is more precise but it still depends on how it is used.

Quote

G166 aionios ahee-o'-nee-osfrom G165;perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):--eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).

Pertaining to an age is not a wrong use of the word based on this. But neither is eternal. The Rule in english cannot strictly apply to an ancient language, and english rules are broken all the time to convey a "concept".

Ain't Ain't a word and I Ain't gonna use it.

As I have said before the intentions of scripture get lost in the debate over strict words and terms that some claim MUST be used. I see the bondage of those debates and it is people who appear to see the spiritual but are trapped in maintaining certain ways of defining something to lock in thier belief. I was one of them, not entirely believing, not wanting to embrace ET and needing that physical shield to protect me.

Don't need it any more, give me any verse any translation and Gods love is big enough to be seen in it.

If we allow the use of forever then oh, that doesn't support UR and oh no if we make it AGE then we risk leading people astray into hell with false doctrines.

The written word will always be in dispute. Here is the bottom line to me, if ET is correct, then the type of God that will allow it cannot be trusted, don't care what anyone says the bible says.

If God is a God of Love, then faith is all we truly have to believe that his Love is enough.

Regarding the idea that an adjective cannot be greater than the noun from which it is derived, nor can it change the meaning, I am trying to weigh everything as I search all this out. What about these words?

Time=noun

Timeless=adjective

Age-=noun

Ageless=adjective

It seems to me that these similar adjectives both describe something greater than time or age, and also is a change in meaning. So perhaps the above statement can have some truth, but not in every single case?

Ron

Ron, Timeless is not the adjectival form of Time but of Timelessness, its nounal form.The Declaration of Independence is a timeless document. The document is pertaining to its timelessness in that it spans all different times within the United States.

Ageless is not the adjectival form of Age but of Agelessness its nounal form.Ageless Mariah Carrey is the epitomy of beauty. Her being ageless pertains to that which is or has agelessness.

So, again, they are not greater than their nounal form.

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

Then for aionios it is more precise but it still depends on how it is used.

Quote

G166 aionios ahee-o'-nee-osfrom G165;perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):--eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).

Dear Paul,Strong is not trying to show how olam or aionios should be translated but is just showing its meaning based upon their usages in the Authorized Version. He is really showing what a botched up job the A.V. people did in translating those two words.

Quote

Pertaining to an age is not a wrong use of the word based on this. But neither is eternal. The Rule in english cannot strictly apply to an ancient language, and english rules are broken all the time to convey a "concept".

But there are grammar rules involved which, when broken, involve is in a despicable hodge podge of confusion. You are correct that "pertaining to an age is not a wrong use of the word based on this." But eternal is because for aionios, being an adjective, to be "eternal" its noun form would have to be eternity and we know its noun form can't be eternity because all the aions end. The English rules are broken in order to uphold doctrines of demons such as "eternal torment."

Quote

Ain't Ain't a word and I Ain't gonna use it.

As I have said before the intentions of scripture get lost in the debate over strict words and terms that some claim MUST be used. I see the bondage of those debates and it is people who appear to see the spiritual but are trapped in maintaining certain ways of defining something to lock in thier belief. I was one of them, not entirely believing, not wanting to embrace ET and needing that physical shield to protect me.

Don't need it any more, give me any verse any translation and Gods love is big enough to be seen in it.

If we allow the use of forever then oh, that doesn't support UR and oh no if we make it AGE then we risk leading people astray into hell with false doctrines.

The written word will always be in dispute. Here is the bottom line to me, if ET is correct, then the type of God that will allow it cannot be trusted, don't care what anyone says the bible says.

If God is a God of Love, then faith is all we truly have to believe that his Love is enough.

It's enough, thats good enough for me.

[/quote]

Oh, well, then, I can translate "God so hates the world that He gave His Son and if you don't believe in Him you will go to hell forever" New John 3:16.

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

Paul Hazelwood

First off usage of a word is a large part of translating ancient languages.

Secondly, strongs is not the only source that provides these multiple uses of aion.

Quote

G165 aion ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age, course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.

thayer and smith

Quote

for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity the worlds, universe period of time, age

Brewer

Ćon (Greek, aion),

Quote

eternity, an immeasurable length of time; any being that is eternal. Basilids reckons there have been 365 such ćons, or gods; but Valentinius restricts the number to 30. Sometimes written "on." 1 In geology each series of rocks covers an ćon, or an indetinite and immeasurable period of time.

I am not finding any source that demands aion is completely subject to only "age" do you have such resources of knowledge?

Lets take the word aion and there are other definitions based on the ancient language. You are implying that the english word EON is the only use for aion then applying it back to the ancient language and making it apply to english rules.

Lets look at John 3:16 and the word loved.

I will post strongs notes, I expect you to refute the strongs notes for this word right?

Quote

G25 agapao ag-ap-ah'-o

perhaps from agan (much) (or compare G5689);

to love (in a social or moral sense):--(be-)love(-ed). Compare G5368.

I do not see any way to conclude that what is known of the ancient language would let me use the word hate in any context or usage. However usage and context allows translations to appear to violate grammar rules with aionios because our grammer rules do not dictate the ancient languages in the first place.

Translations become the "closest" we might be able to get into comparisons so you have to apply the preferred translated word back to the ancient language to support the assertion.

The issue I see is that Gods universal love and his plan for all mankind if not threatened by translational difficulties at all. It is knowledge beyond the literal and physical that will open the eyes of the heart.

@ Apocastasis your concept of eternity is kind of interesting cause it allows UR even if aionios really ment eternal, though i can't follow completely as english is not my mother tonque and it's a very complex topic, but interesting that you understand Philemon 15 aionios as refering only to life time, while i think it can mean eternal there - i don't think before eternal times fit in the concept of timeless eternity

Apocatastasis

Apocastasis your concept of eternity is kind of interesting cause it allows UR even if aionios really ment eternal

I get the sense that most Christian Universalists who insist that aionios never meaning "eternal" are so adamant simply because they cannot reconcile UR with the idea that aionios means "eternal". If they thought it through, they would not think that way.

Quote

but interesting that you understand Philemon 15 aionios as refering only to life time, while i think it can mean eternal there -

I can see it either way, really.

Quote

i don't think before eternal times fit in the concept of timeless eternity

Let me try to explain. The gracious gift of God's life transcends all time (is timeless). We were promised life "before time"; it is eternal.

In other words, I do not think that aionios is modifying chronos (time). Rather, I think aionios expresses the same idea as pro chronos (before time). Does that make sense?

First off usage of a word is a large part of translating ancient languages.

Secondly, strongs is not the only source that provides these multiple uses of aion.

Quote

G165 aion ahee-ohn'

from the same as G104;

properly, an age; by extension, perpetuity (also past); by implication, the world; specially (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future):--age, course, eternal, (for) ever(-more), (n-)ever, (beginning of the , while the) world (began, without end). Compare G5550.

thayer and smith

Quote

for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity the worlds, universe period of time, age

Brewer

Ćon (Greek, aion),

Quote

eternity, an immeasurable length of time; any being that is eternal. Basilids reckons there have been 365 such ćons, or gods; but Valentinius restricts the number to 30. Sometimes written "on." 1 In geology each series of rocks covers an ćon, or an indetinite and immeasurable period of time.

Quote

I am not finding any source that demands aion is completely subject to only "age" do you have such resources of knowledge?

Dear Paul,In the Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament by Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann, published by Hendrickson Publishers, under the heading of Olam, Eternity we have this:Olam, eternity

"The Eng. translation "eternity" used in the heading is inappropriate for a number of OT passages with olam, and, even when it seems appropriate, it may not be permitted to introduce a preconceived concept of eternity, burdened with all manner of later philosophical or theological content.

"Except for a few late passages in Eccl, olam in the OT (as in the contemporary NWSem. inscriptions) has the basic meaning "most distant time," either with a view to the past, to the future, or to both." (end of quote).

These two guys are the leading lexical experts in Europe.

In the New Testament aiwn/aion/eon is only used as the longest segment of time in the Scriptures. It is never used for any other kind of idea. It is never used for unendingness or timelessness or eternity. Again, I guess I have to repeat myself: It is impossible for an aiwn/aion/aeon/eon to be eternal because the Bible says the eons end. Besides that is a contradiction in terms or an oxymoron to state an age can be eternal. Some examples of oxymorons or contradiction in terms would be:

Either I believe the Bible **properly translated** or I believe those whom you quote who only are telling us how some Bible mis-translated aion or olam. Do you understand that their findings do not prove anything except that is how the translation they researched for olam/aion gave those renderings?

In the Old Testament the basic meaning for olam is "obscure" or "obscurity." In other words, the time span in view was obscure to the observer but not ever thought to be eternal! The LXX (Greek, Hebrew scholars who translated the Hebrew into Greek used aion for olam for its noun and aionion for its adjectival forms. They never thought of aion nor aionion as endlessness or eternity.

Quote

Lets take the word aion and there are other definitions based on the ancient language. You are implying that the english word EON is the only use for aion then applying it back to the ancient language and making it apply to english rules.

The word eon is just aion transliterated into its Anglicized form much like we did with baptizo for baptize, Christos for Christ etc. Eon works perfectly for aion in every occurrence in the New Testament. In the New Testament there is no other word that works perfectly like eon and eonian does for aion and aionion.

Quote

Lets look at John 3:16 and the word loved.

I will post strongs notes, I expect you to refute the strongs notes for this word right?

Quote

G25 agapao ag-ap-ah'-o

perhaps from agan (much) (or compare G5689);

to love (in a social or moral sense):--(be-)love(-ed). Compare G5368.

I do not see any way to conclude that what is known of the ancient language would let me use the word hate in any context or usage. However usage and context allows translations to appear to violate grammar rules with aionios because our grammer rules do not dictate the ancient languages in the first place.

If your quoted ones (scholars) can tell me aion can be having a beginning and an end and also having no beginning and no end then I have perfect license to say love can at times be translated hate just because I say so.

Quote

Translations become the "closest" we might be able to get into comparisons so you have to apply the preferred translated word back to the ancient language to support the assertion.

The issue I see is that Gods universal love and his plan for all mankind is not threatened by translational difficulties at all. It is knowledge beyond the literal and physical that will open the eyes of the heart.

No, sorry friend, but this is just plain incorrect. God's love and righteousness are most definately threatened if we allow "eternal" for "aionian" or for "aion" and translate certain verses "eternal torment" etc. Also, it is imperative to not go beyond the literal and physical Word to understand God's revelation to us. The only way we can be saved is if the one whom God sends to us has THE evangel and tells us what THAT evangel is. The evangelist can't just give us something outside the scope of what God has revealed to us in the Scriptures. "How can they hear if one is not sent?" Rom 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." It doesn't say faith cometh by going above what is written.

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

Tony, you do so well until you get to this point . . .you do the opposite of what Jesus said we're to do . .man can not live on bread alone . . .yet you embrace the bread as if it's the final word . . .and it's not. It's a sign that points to the final word . . Jesus also said to the pharisees "you search the scriptures because in them you THINK is eternal life . . .but they point to me . . ."

Scripture has a very powerful place . . . but it's simply a sign that points to the source of that power and if you live on the literal word and not be open to the spirit of what lies beneath, you are stunting your own maturity in the process.

God's purpose is going to advance with or without me . . .but how much better if I let him advance "through" me . . .which comes through the process of laying my mind down at the conception of spiritual truths, which then birth life into my mind, which produces then, fruits of freedom and liberty rather than limitations and conformity.

Apocatastasis

God's love and righteousness are most definately threatened if we allow "eternal" for "aionian" or for "aion" and translate certain verses "eternal torment" etc.

You see folks, the only reason Tony is so adamant about this is because he thinks universal salvation hinges upon it. Rather than letting the lexical evidence shape his conclusions on lexical issues, Tony quite simply is out to grind is theological axe. However, his persistent use of the root fallacy only serves to make Christian Universalism look easily refutable.

I once agreed with Tony that aionios never means "eternal". However, the more I studied this word, the clearer it became that I had to abandon such a rigid stance in order to embrace the facts as they were being revelealed to me. With just a little thought, I could see that universal salvation was never at stake. For example, the Bible talks about "eternal (aeonian) redemption". We know that the redemption is eternal, but we also know that the redemptive process is not eternal. Likewise, "eternal punishment" need not refer to the idea of an unending punitive process, even though aionios does mean "eternal" in this instance.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2009, 07:15:18 PM by Apocatastasis »

Logged

Paul Hazelwood

If your quoted ones (scholars) can tell me aion can be having a beginning and an end and also having no beginning and no end then I have perfect license to say love can at times be translated hate just because I say so.

Well, Tony, if the evidence was just someone saying "I say so" then you would be right, but that is not the issue at all and is an invalid point.

Lets look at the english definition of forever. The problem again is you want a word to only mean one thing and that one thing supports your point of view.

–adverb 1. without ever ending; eternally: to last forever. 2. continually; incessantly; always: He's forever complaining. –noun 3. an endless or seemingly endless period of time: It took them forever to make up their minds. —Idiom4. forever and a day, eternally; always: They pledged to love each other forever and a day.

Now are you going to refute the accepted usage of the word forever here that I highlighted in red just because you say so?

Quote

No, sorry friend, but this is just plain incorrect. God's love and righteousness are most definately threatened if we allow "eternal" for "aionian" or for "aion" and translate certain verses "eternal torment" etc.

It threatens you and how you believe, thats it. God cannot be threatened, it is impossible.

When you realize the conceptual nature of words that can provide an opposite but non contradictory meaning then you will understand that your points are not valid to what I am saying.

I can say "That stop light took forever" not only am I conveying a concept, I am accuratly using the word for what I want to convey. If you want to say that "Well, that stop light didn't really take forever" You would also be correct, but your statement does not contradict what I "MEANT".

Logged

Apocatastasis

Paul, you got right to the crux of the issue. Though, will Tony offer an intelligent reply? Or will he remain content parroting the same old stuff, thereby effectively ignoring everything you just wrote?

« Last Edit: January 26, 2009, 07:25:51 PM by Apocatastasis »

Logged

Zeek

Just a few thoughts regarding the various aspects of the words: eternal, everlasting and forever. It is possible to misconstrue certain passages of Scripture by reading such LANGUAGE in quantitative terms of much-ness, many-ness or longevity i.e., the quantity or length of linear time as in endless duration; instead of in a qualitative sense of total-ness, or that of wholeness, fullness and completion i.e., the full measure. Jesus said: "…you shall have LIFE! and have it more abundantly" [Jn 10:10] – to the FULL!! This fullness equates to eternal life and is more akin to quality in life now, as opposed to quantity of life to come.

Example: An older couple were celebrating their 60th wedding anniversary, and when asked about the success and longevity [quantity] of their relationship, in joyous unison responded "it seems but as yesterday" – they exuded such vitality, freshness and love it was plain to all present that they had such a depth [quality] of relationship built over the years that it was not to be measured by the distance or passage of time [quantity], but by the joy they shared along the way [quality].

Apart from direct references to God, His nature or His attributes etc, eternal, everlasting and forever, in relation to 'man' in most cases, does not carry the meaning of endlessness of duration. In other words, concerning the eternal – the traditional quantitative approach tends to furnish a future SPATIAL context view: a place to go – Heaven beyond. Whereas a textually understood qualitative approach points to a present RELATIONAL condition "in Christ" view: our standing in God – Heaven now. The qualitative view while not negating quantitative aspects of "eternal" better qualifies it. So, eternal, everlasting or forever are better determined by the subject to which it is applied, i.e., context. Thus these words only express the idea of endlessness of duration when connected with what is endless – the infinite Creator Himself.

We further find that John likewise supports this qualitative or relational understanding of eternal:

Jn 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

1Jn 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God. cf. Jn 20:31.

We see connotations of this eternal also in Paul's thoughts when he says "even so we also should walk in newness of life" Rom 6:4. This newness of life is that ever-present abundant life promised by Jesus, and is NOT speaking of some ageless sweet by and by, but our present walk in Christ's righteousness. Even the "eternal life" of Jn 3:16 being in the aorist tense, is a presently accomplished reality. Likewise those finding "the way which leads to life" of Mt 7:14 – this is not speaking in terms of post death destiny, but is in the present tense and in the same vein as Jn 10:10. As with the "fullness of the Gentiles" [Rom 11:25] being qualitative and NOT quantitative, so too is eternal life i.e., it is covenantal and relational – something to be experienced in life, this life.

There is also the issue of God's covenantal dealings with Israel most of which are stated as being eternal, everlasting or forever, none of which however in their redemptive settings necessitates an endlessness of duration requirement; but are indicative of God's dealings with His specific people for a specific purpose, in a specific way, according to a specific period, epoch, era or age; thus longevity when dealing with man does NOT necessitate endlessness nor timelessness.

We have for example 'Sodom and Gomorrah' – Jude 1:7 tells us that these cities and their surrounds would suffer "the vengeance of eternal fire" yet none of these are still burning today – eternally. Clearly the unquenchable fire was indicative of the TOTALITY of destruction that was wrought upon them.

Isa 34:8-10 For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, the year of recompense for the cause of Zion. Its streams shall be turned into pitch, and its dust into brimstone; its land shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night or day; its smoke shall ascend forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; no one shall pass through it forever and ever.

Some suppose such words as "shall not be quenched" or "unquenchable fire" to mean such fire of endless duration, yet in the Scriptures such as an unquenchable fire is one that cannot be quenched nor extinguished until its full purpose has been reached and accomplished. If for instance a house has been totally consumed by fire, the fire it is said, strictly speaking, was unquenchable, and no effort made to put it out could extinguish it; yet no one would contend that the fire, left to itself, would never expire of itself – there was totality of destruction but not ongoing destruction.

To labour the point; these words eternal, everlasting and forever need not always be locked to the meaning of endlessness or longevity. Scripture gives many examples of life, land, laws, circumcision and time as being forever and ever, everlasting or eternal, yet in many of these instances they are governed or determined by a definitive period or time frame in which God is dealing with a specific people in a specific way for a specific purpose – and can in no way be seen as meaning ageless or ceaseless.

The following table shows this to be the case; promises are made "eternally" yet with a Divinely predetermined end or fulfilment in view:

FOREVER: ß EVERLASTING COVENANTS ŕ CEASE:

Gen 17:10-13 – CIRCUMCISION – Gal 5:1-6; 6:15

Ex 12:14, 17, 24 – PASSOVER – Col 2:16-17

Ex 29:9; 40:15 – AARONIC PRIESTHOOD – Heb 7:11-17

Lev 16:29, 31, 34; 23:31 – DAY OF ATONEMENT – Heb 9:23-28; 10:1-18

Psa 119:151-152, 160 – RIGHTEOUS ORDINANCES – Gal 3:24-25; Heb 9:10

Ex 31:16-17 – THE SABBATH – Col 2:16-17

Further we must consider "how" language is used in the Bible – if we stick dogmatically with what is called a "wooden literalism" modality for understanding Scripture, then we will invariably become hamstrung in our understanding of truth, as these examples will demonstrate:

Psa 21:4 He asked life from You, and You gave it to him-- Length of days forever and ever. ["Length of days" is a reference to physicality – hence limited]

Isa 30:8 Now go, write it before them on a tablet, And note it on a scroll, That it may be for time to come, forever and ever: [Time, epochs i.e., eras]

Jer 7:7 …then I will cause you to dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.

[Continuance in the Land was always conditional upon Israel's obedience, even though initially all these promises were fulfilled Josh 21:43-45]

Gen 17:8 Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." [As above]

Gen 17:13 He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. [Are we bound to this everlasting type? – as someone once said: "well it's no skin off my nose". Deut 30:6 shows circumcision's true intent in]

Lev 16:34 This shall be an everlasting statute for you, to make atonement for the children of Israel, for all their sins, once a year." And he did as the LORD commanded Moses. [Fortunately for us, Jesus was the everlasting or ultimate sacrifice Heb 9:26; 10:12]

Num 25:13 …and it shall be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of an everlasting priesthood, because he was zealous for his God, and made atonement for the children of Israel." [What a difference a new covenant makes – Heb 7:12]

Isa 24:5 The earth is also defiled under its inhabitants, because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. [Can logic allow for that which is "eternal" if that's what "everlasting" means, to be broken?]

Lastly we come to the literal text, for although it can be abused it certainly carries clout and cannot be ignored. Again, from the pantelistic perspective when it comes to life eternal, everlasting or forever it is NOT speaking post mortem existence, but as the apostle John clearly signified it relates to the totality and comprehensive nature of our vital relationship with God in this present life. Conversely, John's everlasting "condemnation" of Jn 5:29 speaks of the total and comprehensive nature and gravity of the historic shame experienced in this life by those who were thus "judged" [same Greek word as "condemned"] in that "end of the age" period culminating in the AD70 Parousia. For them this was their perpetual shame or historical contempt as is testified in this life. This however in no way takes away from the fact that where sin abounded, grace, mercy and peace much more abounded in forgiveness from God toward them in Christ – God above all remained and remains faithful to His Word, Rom 3:3-4a; 11:32-33.

When speaking of the nature and attributes of God we speak in terms of His "eternal love" etc, and understand such qualitatively so, i.e., the comprehensive or total extent and reach of His love – in other words it is not limited by measurable or fathomable human terms and definitions. Yet even in the hidden-ness of the eternal can a sense of finite-ness be understood as reaching both backward and forward, from time immemorial into the far reaching future, and can possibly be illustrated accordingly:

Antiquity ß = ETERNAL = ŕ Perpetuity

And in capturing this thought the Psalmist so simply and succinctly says: …even from everlasting to everlasting, You are God. Psa 90:2

Now when speaking of "eternal" as it relates to man this "qualitative" nature of "eternal" always fits within man's earthly timeframe – thus "eternal" can rightly be understood as "unto or into the age" as it is often rendered in 'Young's Literal Translation' when translating the words "eternal" or "everlasting". This is further evidenced in the following Old and New Testament Greek texts where "forever" [eternal] and "the age" are both designated by the one Greek word aionos:

Gen 13:15 …for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever.

So we have the literal Greek text tou aionos – του αιωνος, being variously translated as above and unmistakably indicative of the limited or defined nature that the words "forever", "everlasting" and "eternal" can have when ascribed to man and his age of existence, i.e., aionos fits within a specified era relative to the subject matter at hand.

And lastly; in the bible the notion of "unending" or "endlessness" can be expressed either by the use of particular negatives such as "not", "no not", "un" or "less", or more directly by specific Greek words meaning such. There are a number of examples to draw from: Lk 1:33 "…and of His kingdom there will be no end." – ouk estai telos [ουκ εσται τελος]; Heb 7:16 …according to the power of an endless life. – akatalutou [ακαταλου]; …nor give heed to fables and endless genealogies… 1Tim 1:4 – aperantois [απεραντοις]; and Rev 18:21-23 "…shall not be …anymore" – ou mē …eti [ου μη …ετι].

Not one of these specific words are ever used in the context of punishment beyond the grave, and certainly these could have been used IF such was the case; they were not for there is not

Secondly aion is used to mean world. Some people say that aion always means age, but that is clearly not so from the following two scriptures:

He has spoken to us by his Son, through whom he made the aions (Heb 1: 2). By faith we understand that the aions were formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible (Heb 11: 3).

It is certainly true that God created the ages, but it is clear that ages cannot be the right translation of the word aion in these contexts. Whatever aion means was visible, and that excludes periods of time.

Just because the defintiion of "age" is "a period of time" that does not mean that we can not talk about ages as if they were visible tangible objects. Consider these phrases:- dark ages- bronze age- the present wicked age

Are we going to say that since time periods can not literally be dark or metallic or wicked that "age" does not mean "time period" in the above phrases? The ages are visible by virtue of what we see taking place within them.

I'm not aware of any place in scripture that aion can not be translated age and make sense.

If your quoted ones (scholars) can tell me aion can be having a beginning and an end and also having no beginning and no end then I have perfect license to say love can at times be translated hate just because I say so.

Well, Tony, if the evidence was just someone saying "I say so" then you would be right, but that is not the issue at all and is an invalid point.

Lets look at the english definition of forever. The problem again is you want a word to only mean one thing and that one thing supports your point of view.

–adverb 1. without ever ending; eternally: to last forever. 2. continually; incessantly; always: He's forever complaining. –noun 3. an endless or seemingly endless period of time: It took them forever to make up their minds. —Idiom4. forever and a day, eternally; always: They pledged to love each other forever and a day.

Now are you going to refute the accepted usage of the word forever here that I highlighted in red just because you say so?

[/quote]

Paul, Paul, Paul, *sigh* what am I going to do with you? The accepted used of TODAY in TODAY'S dictionary is not the accepted usage 2000 years ago. No eon is forever. No eon is eternal. No eon is unending. So it is impossible for someone in the New Testament to even use aion in a highly figurative usage such as we do today with the word "forever." In the New Testament neither eon nor eonian was ever used in the sense of "He's forever complaining."

Quote

No, sorry friend, but this is just plain incorrect. God's love and righteousness are most definately threatened if we allow "eternal" for "aionian" or for "aion" and translate certain verses "eternal torment" etc.

Quote

It threatens you and how you believe, thats it. God cannot be threatened, it is impossible.

If God loses the majority of humanity to eternal torment, that neither shows a loving God, no matter how you spin it, nor does it show a merciful God, no matter how you spin it, nor a wise God nor a righteous God, no matter how you spin it. If people go to hell for eternity, God and Christ are losers. God is threatened and that's that.

Quote

When you realize the conceptual nature of words that can provide an opposite but non contradictory meaning then you will understand that your points are not valid to what I am saying.

Sorry but that kind of reasoning is only to be found in the Wonderland Alice visited. I like normalcy.

Quote

I can say "That stop light took forever" not only am I conveying a concept, I am accuratly using the word for what I want to convey. If you want to say that "Well, that stop light didn't really take forever" You would also be correct, but your statement does not contradict what I "MEANT".

No one in the New Testament ever used aion nor aionion in the way we do today for forever. So it's a moot point.

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

Apocatastasis

The problem with your argument is that ages are not spoken of as visible creations anywhere else in the Bible. However, Paul elsewhere speaks of the invisible things of God being made manifest through the visible created world:

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Let's look at Hebrews 11:3 again. Note that they are strikingly similari:"By faith we understand that the aions were formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

It is evident that aion and kosmos are synonymous in these two verses.

Logged

Apocatastasis

Tony, I understand that you are frustrated. You cannot intelligently counter the points that Paul, myself and others have made. All you can do is repeat what you've already said, even though what you've said does not address the challenges that have been put forth to you.

The problem with your argument is that ages are not spoken of as visible creations anywhere else in the Bible. However, Paul elsewhere speaks of the invisible things of God being made manifest through the visible created world:

Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Let's look at Hebrews 11:3 again. Note that they are strikingly similari:"By faith we understand that the aions were formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."

It is evident that aion and kosmos are synonymous in these two verses.

The eons and worlds are not synonymous but they what often happens to the world and ends a world also ends the eon. But you wouldn't say that the two are synonymous.

And your verses are poorly translated.

Rom 1:20 For His invisible attributes are descried from the creation of the world, being apprehended by His achievements, besides His imperceptible (aidios) power and divinity, for them to be defenseless,

Heb 11:3 By faith we are apprehending the eons to adjust to a declaration of God, so that what is being observed has not come out of what is appearing."

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

Apocatastasis

If people go to hell for eternity, God and Christ are losers. God is threatened and that's that.

Tony, I know that you don't agree with William Barcaly's understanding of aionios, but don't you at least see that his understanding of the word is compatible with universal salvation? Don't you realize that here are other viable applications of the word eternal such that UR is not compromised?

Quote

Paul, Paul, Paul, *sigh* what am I going to do with you? The accepted used of TODAY in TODAY'S dictionary is not the accepted usage 2000 years ago. No eon is forever. No eon is eternal. No eon is unending. So it is impossible for someone in the New Testament to even use aion in a highly figurative usage such as we do today with the word "forever." In the New Testament neither eon nor eonian was ever used in the sense of "He's forever complaining."

You completely missed Paul's point, but I'll let him explain. Paul, the floor is yours.

Tony, I understand that you are frustrated. You cannot intelligently counter the points that Paul, myself and others have made. All you can do is repeat what you've already said, even though what you've said does not address the challenges that have been put forth to you.

But that is your own uderstanding and is not shared by me that I am frustrated. Just because you think I am does not make it so. It just means you are as wrong about that as you are about the eons and eonian.

Quote

Just because you are a mocker does not mean you are correct.

Quote

A mocker? A mocker of what?

[/quote]

One who laughs at what others write is a mocker.

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.

If people go to hell for eternity, God and Christ are losers. God is threatened and that's that.

Tony, I know that you don't agree with William Barcaly's understanding of aionios, but don't you at least see that his understanding of the word is compatible with universal salvation? Don't you realize that here are other viable applications of the word eternal such that UR is not compromised?

Quote

Paul, Paul, Paul, *sigh* what am I going to do with you? The accepted used of TODAY in TODAY'S dictionary is not the accepted usage 2000 years ago. No eon is forever. No eon is eternal. No eon is unending. So it is impossible for someone in the New Testament to even use aion in a highly figurative usage such as we do today with the word "forever." In the New Testament neither eon nor eonian was ever used in the sense of "He's forever complaining."

You completely missed Paul's point, but I'll let him explain. Paul, the floor is yours.

Gabe, I absolutely and categorically do not agree with Barclay's idea concerning aionion. Look in any good book that teaches Greek and they all will say that the adjective modifies the noun. Barclay and others break that rule by having the noun modify aionios. He makes God's life modify the adjective aionios. That's bad. Real bad.Other instance of where they make the noun modify the adjective is Romans 16:26. There they say that aionios must be eternal because God is eternal. But that is reversing the law of the adjective that it modifies the noun and not the other way around.So, no, I do not agree in any way, shape or form with Barclay.Even if universalism is not compromised a sane and sound mind is compromised. And besided, the laws of language are compromised. If we can do that with eonian then we have license to do it with other words. It then becomes a wild west of translators. Oh, wait, that's been going on already for hundreds of years. Time for the sheriff to put an end to the lawlessness.

« Last Edit: January 26, 2009, 08:58:53 PM by Tony N »

Logged

Just because God says He will save all mankinddoes not necessarily mean He won't.